The assessment of a project’s feasibility is typically focused on technical, economic and legal feasibility using traditional methods e.g. return on investment analysis.

Projects need to consider the impact of climate change on the long-term performance and operation of the proposed infrastructure project and the systems that they operate within. There should also be an understanding of the wider outcomes that they deliver.

The following tools and approaches are available to inform about the wider benefits of the project:

• Multi-criteria analysis
• Social cost benefit analysis
• Real options analysis
• Robust decision making
• Rule-based decision support for uncertainty
• Decision-making under uncertainty/Uncertainty framing

Additionally, when thinking about the feasibility of options, this should be in the context of whole lifecycle planning, where the long-term affordability in the context of climate change needs to be considered.

A project’s feasibility is typically considered in isolation rather than how the project will contribute to the resilience and outcomes of the wider system and its interdependent systems.

Our infrastructure assets operate within a system-of-systems and are increasingly interdependent. Climate change can compound this issue, and extreme weather events can lead to failures of individual assets which can have significant impacts on the system they operate within, alongside other interdependent systems. This can then lead to wider societal and environmental impacts.

Systems mapping and interdependency assessments are emerging tools that can be used to understand how different systems interact with each other. Typically, these assessments will be based on qualitative data. This can be undertaken with internal stakeholders to identify and assess the dependencies across the system, or with external stakeholders to understand cross-sector interdependencies. However, where data is available, systems mapping can be quantitative.

Understanding the interdependencies of infrastructure systems, and the critical failure points, is therefore vital to achieving long-term climate resilience across a whole jurisdiction or region. It can also reduce costs and distribute the risks.

Options for physically resilient infrastructure have traditionally focused and relied upon infrastructure hardening and through the development of grey infrastructure.

There is a need to ensure that the  development of new infrastructure projects does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Therefore, we need to ensure that greener and more sustainable solutions are prioritised and that where possible, nature-based solutions that support both climate change mitigation and adaptation are written into the scope of the works.

Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure provide opportunities to use, learn from, and promote eco-systems’ naturally-evolved resilience. Nature-based solutions can also provide wider benefits to society through better environments, access to cleaner air, increased biodiversity and access to green space

Infrastructure projects have traditionally used past weather events as a predictor of the future and not considered the impact of future weather and climate on their feasibility.

Climate change affect both average and extreme weather conditions, including temperature and rainfall. This means that information on previous weather averages and extremes is no longer representative of future conditions. Therefore, thought needs to be given about how future climate scenarios may present risks to infrastructure systems and how the evaluation of project feasibility in light of these dynamic risks must evolve.

The following tools and approaches are available to inform practitioners in the feasibility phase about future climate risks:

• Global, national and regional climate change projections
• Climate change risk assessment
• Sensitivity analysis

to potential future climate extremes should also be communicated.

Climate resilience measures are often implemented later in the infrastructure lifecycle, at the design, construction or operations and maintenance phase, leading to increased overall costs.

With climate change, resilience measures need to be built into the scope of new infrastructure projects at an early stage. A comprehensive climate change risk assessment should be undertaken to see how climate change may impact the proposed project over its whole lifecycle. Additionally, individual assets need to be flexible and adaptive to potential future uncertainty.

There is a need to ensure that pre-development funding is available to support the effective feasibility and preparation of projects, including conducting climate risk assessments and other technical studies necessary to integrate resilience value into the scope of projects.

Theme 1: Focussing project definition

Climate change mitigation measures require more immediate and decisive action, to reduce the long-term impacts of climate change and the need for more extreme adaptation measures. Mitigation measures must be considered and built into project definition, scope and objectives. Stakeholder engagement and consultation will be important to build support for projects that include climate mitigation.

Governments have a civic responsibility to ensure that public infrastructure is accessible to all and can benefit all members of society equitably. Ensuring that projects are further developed and planned in a way that takes into consideration long-term climate impacts, aligns with a shared system vision and includes adaptation approaches will allow it to consistently serve society in times of crisis and provide co-benefits on a regular basis.

Theme 2: Embedding climate resilience into project planning

Feasibility studies must consider, wherever possible, climate mitigation in addition to adaptation and resilience. Mitigation becomes particularly important when decisions are made for the long-term, as interventions that look to mitigate long-term climate change must be incorporated as early as possible, to be most effective.

Resilience assurance/governance plans should also highlight opportunities for climate mitigation that can be implemented as the project develops

Climate change most severely impacts the poorest and most vulnerable; therefore, those in a position of power should equitably approach adaptation and climate –resilience-building.

Feasibility studies must take a people-centred view, putting emphasis on the needs of the most vulnerable members of society and selecting project options that deliver the greatest resilience value to the benefit of the many. Project preparation and planning activities offer opportunities to ensure that equity issues are acknowledged and addressed in the project scope.